2019 (8) TMI 1293 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - Air Travel Agent Service - Modernisation, Repair and Renovation of factory premises - Event Management - Hotel bills - denial of credit on the ground of lack of documentary evidences - HELD THAT - Appeal memo from page 78 to 90 contains the written submissions of the appellant made before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein this appellant had placed detail of all documents including the invoice details of M/s Advent Engineering Pvt. Ltd. at entry No. 822 page 89 and the nature of work is also stated that there to be documentation and drawing charges and those were not considered by the lower authorities. This being the facts on record, with the consent and concurrence of learned AR for the respondent-department this appeal is remanded back for re-adjudication on the basis of documents produced/to be produced before the adjudicating authority where appellant has to establish the nexus between the input and output services. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit on specific heads such as Air Travel Agent Service, Modernisation, Repair and Renovation of factory premises, Event Management, and Hotel bills.
- Rejection of credits due to lack of documentary evidence to establish the business purpose of the services availed.
- Appeal for refund based on export turnover and local market turnover.
- Lack of findings by lower authorities on admissibility/inadmissibility of CENVAT credit despite submission of documents.
- Remand for re-adjudication to establish nexus between input and output services.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of CENVAT credit on various services availed by a tyre manufacturing company, primarily focusing on Air Travel Agent Service, Modernisation, Repair and Renovation of factory premises, Event Management, and Hotel bills. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the denial citing reasons such as lack of documentary evidence to prove the business nature of the services. The appellant, with an export turnover of over 90%, sought a refund but faced challenges due to availing services for both export and local market turnover components. The appellant's counsel argued that all necessary documents were submitted before the lower authorities, but no conclusive findings were provided on the admissibility of the credits.

In response to the lack of findings, the appellant presented additional evidence during the appeal, including sample copies of Air travel bills and invoices from service providers. These documents demonstrated the business nature of the services availed, such as a manager traveling for project-related purposes and charges for technical work on factory premises. The Tribunal found the denial of credit on the grounds presented by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be unjustified and not in line with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As a result, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal by way of remand for re-adjudication.

The remand instructed the original adjudicating authority to re-examine the case based on the observations made, emphasizing the need for the appellant to establish a clear nexus between the input and output services availed. The order set aside the previous decision by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), requiring the appellant to appear and present its defense upon notice. The judgment highlights the importance of providing sufficient documentary evidence to support claims for CENVAT credit and the necessity of a thorough assessment to determine the eligibility of such credits in line with the relevant legal provisions.